2. We examine both the judgment and the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing in a lump sum.

The Defendant, who had 32 times criminal records, was sentenced to four months of imprisonment due to damage to public goods that can be seen as the same crime, and completed the execution of the sentence, and committed each of the instant crimes again during the period of repeated crime. Each of the instant crimes committed assault against multiple correctional officers by means of spitation, etc. on the face of correctional officers two times during the detention house, and the quality of each of the instant crimes is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in a state where the Defendant was in a state where he had not been frightencing due to scalopic addiction and surgery with scalopic addiction, and received hospitalized treatment at a hospital, etc., and shows an attitude to recognize and reflect all of the crimes of this case. The Defendant submitted a written application to the effect that G, one of the correctional officers suffering from scalopic addiction, has filed an appeal against the Defendant at the time of the trial. In light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to 30 days gold disposition within the detention house due to each of the crimes of this case, and is in the location where he should support the mother and wife, and other various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in this case, such as the Defendant’s age and environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for the period of four months.

3. If so, the appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant is justified.